bug#56110: 27+; switching from line-mode to char-mode

[Michael Heerdegen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> So you prefer taking the risk that such a thing happens at some point in
> the future, or that someone copies this code without knowing what were
> your assumptions?
>
> Personally, I prefer using `add/remove-function` and stop worrying about
> those risks.  After all, that's part of the reason why I developed them.

I must admit I don't understand.

First: Don't buffer local variables come with the same problem?

Second: When somebody changes a binding using `add/remove-function` with
a scope limited to the scope of my `let', we have no problem.

So let's assume a global scope is wanted.  Then that somebody still has
to figure out what exactly to add-function to, and if the currently seen
value is not the global one, or what the scope of the currently seen
binding is.  Bindings can be local or buffer local.

Then one has to figure out if the binding (variable), or the value is to
be modified.  You yourself got it wrong in this case.  So using
`add/remove-function` is still absolutely nontrivial if I used
`add-function' instead of `let'.

Finally, what about variables that can be bound to functions but also
other types like strings?  You can't use `add-function' on them, right?

TIA,

Michael.